they've been on the bourke st cycleway near the junction with devonshire street 4 or 5 times in the last month during the morning peak (i go past around 8:45am). so maybe they are doing a big crackdown?

I and another guy were stopped on the road (left lane) adjacent to the bike lane at Pyrmont Bridge Hotel as the lights were red. one of the police was motioning me and the other guy to "get off the road" (we were going to head east down past darling harbour on Darling Drive - heading straight for the painted bike lane!!!) and onto the bike lane to cross with all the people heading over the shared bridge.

we weren't even wanting to go in the direction he was telling us to go!

even better, as we rode past him (we on the road, him standing just behind the kerb) he called out "you're not allowed to ride on the road"!Say What????

What should he have done then? I imagine these crackdowns are at the behest of the government - which is anti-cycling. I'd like to think that it was an honest mistake, but the cynic in me questions that.

A good old TV media-sting is what is needed to catch out people like these. Some good old GIPA work might also go well - requesting memos, briefing notes and other correspondence relating to those crack-downs.

He should understand that cyclists are legally allowed to ride in the direction we were wishing to go - especially given the fact that there was a bicycle symbol painted on the road not 20m from where he was standing (maybe he was unsure as to whether Darling Drive might be an exclusive feeder for the Harbour Bridge - the only reason I could think of as to why he may have had a legitimate reason to believe we were not allowed on THAT road).

I did call back at him to walk up and have a look at the bicycle symbol.....

He didn't shoot at or chase us so I am guessing he didn't really think we were doing anything wrong?!?

snortin wrote:I and another guy were stopped on the road (left lane) adjacent to the bike lane at Pyrmont Bridge Hotel as the lights were red. one of the police was motioning me and the other guy to "get off the road" (we were going to head east down past darling harbour on Darling Drive - heading straight for the painted bike lane!!!) and onto the bike lane to cross with all the people heading over the shared bridge.

we weren't even wanting to go in the direction he was telling us to go!

even better, as we rode past him (we on the road, him standing just behind the kerb) he called out "you're not allowed to ride on the road"!WT?????

His statement "you're not allowed to ride on the road" would appear to reflect a view about road rule 247

Road Rule 247 Riding in a bicycle lane on a road wrote:(1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.Note. Rule 153 defines a bicycle lane and deals with the use of bicycle lanes by other vehicles.(2) In this rule:road does not include a road related area.Note. Road related area includes the shoulder of a road—see rule 13.

I would quite happily argue the officers interpretation is wrong - what he was looking at was not a "bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction ..." but rather a bicyle path designed for bicycles travelling in both directions, as defined in rule 239(4). You could also argue that the priority of the lights (& their lack of function on Union St) means that it is impracticable to use the bike lane.

In the case of a cyclist continuing down Darling Drive I would strongly argue that it is not only impracticable but also inherently unsafe to be on the bike path and then merge back into the road.

I guess it also depends on whether it is a dedicated bike lane or a shared path as well.

If it is a designated bike lane, cyclists are required to use it. If it is a shared path, the cyclist can choose to use it.

cheersGlenn

-----------"Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever" Lance Armstrong

I passed 3 of them on the offramp on ANZAC Bridge as well as the lot that were at Pyrmont Bridge.

One thing I did notice this morning (due to having repair a flat just before the bridge was the number of people not wearing melon protectors. I passed one of them on Pyrmont Bridge putting her helmet on. Mehtinks the Police may have had a word.

r2160 wrote:I guess it also depends on whether it is a dedicated bike lane or a shared path as well.

If it is a designated bike lane, cyclists are required to use it. If it is a shared path, the cyclist can choose to use it.

cheersGlenn

The symbol for a bicycle lane is quite specific, but it includes the usual bike symbol plus a particular style of arrow. From the bay, on Lilyfield Rd, Anzac Bridge, Union St, Pyrmont Bridge and King St, not one of them use that symbol. So, cycling on the road and ignoring the "bike lanes" is fine.

What I do find laughable is the bike lane on Lilyfield Rd where I spend more time out of it due to buses and trucks parked across it and the daily occurrence of someone flinging their door open without looking, actually usually they look and see you and open their car door anyway

Saw the boys in blue this morning close to 8.30am. Loads of cyclists queueing at the lights but all lid protected. Thought about asking if they had caught any pesky jay walkers but thought better of it...

snortin wrote:I and another guy were stopped on the road (left lane) adjacent to the bike lane at Pyrmont Bridge Hotel as the lights were red. one of the police was motioning me and the other guy to "get off the road" (we were going to head east down past darling harbour on Darling Drive - heading straight for the painted bike lane!!!) and onto the bike lane to cross with all the people heading over the shared bridge.

we weren't even wanting to go in the direction he was telling us to go!

even better, as we rode past him (we on the road, him standing just behind the kerb) he called out "you're not allowed to ride on the road"!WT?????

His statement "you're not allowed to ride on the road" would appear to reflect a view about road rule 247

Road Rule 247 Riding in a bicycle lane on a road wrote:(1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.Note. Rule 153 defines a bicycle lane and deals with the use of bicycle lanes by other vehicles.(2) In this rule:road does not include a road related area.Note. Road related area includes the shoulder of a road—see rule 13.

I would quite happily argue the officers interpretation is wrong - what he was looking at was not a "bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction ..." but rather a bicyle path designed for bicycles travelling in both directions, as defined in rule 239(4). You could also argue that the priority of the lights (& their lack of function on Union St) means that it is impracticable to use the bike lane.

In the case of a cyclist continuing down Darling Drive I would strongly argue that it is not only impracticable but also inherently unsafe to be on the bike path and then merge back into the road.

I might write to the police to get a clarification of this. i will then carry the reply with me and show it to any policeman who wants to argue. If they disagree, I will film them and report them.

Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.

A bicycle lane is a lane on a road and you are required to ride in it if practicable to do so.A bicycle path is not a bike lane and is a road related area. You are never required to ride on one.A shared bath is also not a bike lane and is also a road related area. You are never required to ride on one.

The definitions of the above are all in the road rules and only bicycle lanes have any requirement that you use them (with the if practicable, get out in any case).

However, I'd just say "yes sir, no sir, sorry sir, three bags full sir" and then "**** you sir" under my breath as I went on my way. Simply not worth pressing the point, they'll find something if you irritate them and they are only doing what they are told, so nothing you tell them is going to change what they do.

simonn wrote:A bicycle lane is a lane on a road and you are required to ride in it if practicable to do so.

The problem here is the definition of a bicycle lane. As per the road rules (NSW), "(4) A bicycle lane is a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane:(a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane, and"

A bicycle lane sign is a symbol of a bicycle with the word LANE under (as per the definition in the road rules). If this is not present it is not a bicycle lane in accordance with the definition and you are not required to ride in it.

Oxford wrote:I would stop and ask them to clarify under what law they are making their request. Then tell them I will check that right there and then and give them an opportunity to further clarify their position and then as is the case here, show them they are wrong. All very respectfully and politely. And all being recorded for later use if it gets ugly.

I wouldn't be doing that down here Ox, holding yer ground make local plods fearful for their lives and yer know what happens after that...

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

Oxford wrote:I would stop and ask them to clarify under what law they are making their request. Then tell them I will check that right there and then and give them an opportunity to further clarify their position and then as is the case here, show them they are wrong. All very respectfully and politely. And all being recorded for later use if it gets ugly.

I wouldn't be doing that down here Ox, holding yer ground make local plods fearful for their lives and yer know what happens after that...

read my thread on standing up to a traffic cop last week. edumacated him about traffic laws and he couldn't write the ticket as he couldn't validate his reason. but yeah I'm not a fan of the VicPol, jack boots is a description that comes to mind.

That's because you got a cop who was willing to doubt his own understanding (or you're a really good talker). The problem comes when Mr. Plod writes you a ticket anyway and then you have to take a day off work to go and see Mr. Magistrate who may be having a bad day and really doesn't care what Oxford said on the internets about the law. Even if you win, you're out a days pay.

Yeah, we have noticed you can talk Ox - where did that handle come from again ?

I am familiar with the path - ride in that vicinity pretty much every day - the path has a lane each way and a concrete gutter intended to stop (but not quite prevent) morons motorists from driving on it. Next time you ride in that area, you should notice a few things[1] There are no bicycle lane signs[2] There are no bicycle path signs.[3] There are road markings - the bicycle symbol and the word “only” on one side and the bicycle symbol and the words “only” and "end" on the other.

While I have a particular opinion & am confident that I am right, like BFV says, what someone on the interwebs thinks is not going to count for very much. What follows are the things that, if you are in the situation of wanting to challenge the issue you might to point out to the police officer, State Debt Recovery Office, magistrate, Court of Appeal or High Court.

One of the reasons forpointing things out to the police officer & the SDRO is that if they continue to press the charges & you win, there is a good chance you will convince the magistrate the proceedings were initiated without reasonable cause & get your costs paid

I have set out rule 247 above, which is only applicable to a "bicycle lane" which is defined in road rule 153

Road Rule 153 Bicycle Lanes wrote:(4) A bicycle lane is a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane:(a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane, and(b) ending at the nearest of the following:(i) an end bicycle lane sign applying to the lane,(ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the continuing road at a T-intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines),(iii) if the road ends at a dead end—the end of the road.

A bicycle lane sign is and an end bicycle lane sign is . The observant will note that it must be a sign and not a road marking which are defined seperately.

A bicycle path on the other hand is defined in road rule 239(4)

Road Rule 239(4) wrote:bicycle path means a length of path beginning at a bicycle path sign or bicycle path road marking, and ending at the nearest of the following:(a) an end bicycle path sign or end bicycle path road marking,(b) a separated footpath sign or separated footpath road marking,(c) a road (except a road related area),(d) the end of the path.Note. Road related area is defined in rule 13.

bicycle path road marking means a road marking on a path, consisting of a bicycle symbol, the words “bicycles only”, or both the bicycle symbol and the word “only”.Note. Bicycle symbol is defined in the Dictionary.

Oxford wrote:I would stop and ask them to clarify under what law they are making their request. Then tell them I will check that right there and then and give them an opportunity to further clarify their position and then as is the case here, show them they are wrong. All very respectfully and politely. And all being recorded for later use if it gets ugly.

I wouldn't be doing that down here Ox, holding yer ground make local plods fearful for their lives and yer know what happens after that...

read my thread on standing up to a traffic cop last week. edumacated him about traffic laws and he couldn't write the ticket as he couldn't validate his reason. but yeah I'm not a fan of the VicPol, jack boots is a description that comes to mind.

I did, the phone has been loaded but I'd still be iffy about talking back to our finest without a lot of forelock tugging.

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

find_bruce wrote:That's the one - it is even rarer than the sign, in that the lane is continued across the intersection by broken lines.

Actually, that's the first bike lane sign up to that point... The section of broken-line bike lane that crosses the road is not actually a bike lane as there is no sign until *after* the intersection.

Not that the broken lines help at all... The intersection just west of this (which also has broken lines for the bike lane) was where I was hit by a car (broken arm, knocked unconscious) whilst riding in the nicely marked bike lane!

The bike lane sign for the other direction has disappeared, I assume by vandals. (looks more like a road shoulder, but did at one stage have a bike lane sign) Not that the bike lane stopped people from parking in it!

Reman wrote:So there you go, in the remote chance I'm cruising around the middle 'gong area I know I must use that lane

you will find them a bit closer to your home, eg Lilifield Rd. Of course with all the trucks, boats buses etc parked across the lane it is pretty easy to establish that it is impracticable to use it.

I travel Lilyfield Rd almost everyday, trust me they aren't Bike Lanes that you must use. They are your bog standard paint a line and some bikes on the side of a road so buses and trucks know to park there so you can't actually use them